Skip to content

TVG and Long Ashton

September 16, 2011

Big boost for green campaigners as long ashton moves into the cause in an effort to save their village and way of life. They know that the massive greenbelt development planned by Lansdown and his bankers spells the beginning of the end for them. Surrounded and swallowed up by the nightmare concrete jungle of burger joints and supermarkets along with housing estates as far as Barrow Gurney-they know that if the money merchants get their way its curtains for the north somerset village. Thats why the parish council has voted thousands to support the respected Crispen to lead their judicial review campaign against the dodgy PROW dealings.
Good that the evening lost published an unbiased Onions report on the issues.
Typical that further into the paper their’s a heart to heart interview with bcfc’s guy price as a spoiler along with the usual editorial junk against the tvg campaigners in the same edition.

  1. thebristolblogger permalink
    September 16, 2011 10:28 pm

    This is turning in to an Ealing Comedy.

    Billionaire finance man, semi-corrupt politicians and a bunch of power-crazed local authority suits on 6-figure salaries turned over by plucky English Parish Council.

    Simon Cook could play himself.

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    September 16, 2011 10:45 pm

    More like one flew over the cuckoos nest, where the loonies take over the asylum, eh Jack!.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    September 16, 2011 10:47 pm

    I was quite enjoying the complete lack of utter drivel written on this blog site, for a while. Now you two have completely spoilt it, Can’t we go back to silence.

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    September 16, 2011 11:08 pm

    Let’s save the village of Long Ashton, you know the village with it’s wide spectrum of housing, from the 16th century through to the 1980s and 90s and a few since. The village with a council estate that wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the existence of the city that the residents live off.
    Everyone knows that if the stadium goes ahead, the village will get better parking protection than it currently does. If as suggested by the parish councillors, the existing stadium is expanded/developed. The parking restrictions proposed for the new stadium will not be required, so the village will be worse off.
    This is about possible future housing developments and nothing else, as far as those councillors are concerned. The thing is, as current planning law states, to have the stadium development, there needs to be extenuating circumstances and proof of no other sites, that has been proven in this case. Housing could not prove this. It was only under the previous government that the threat of this housing on greenbelt land arose. The demand for housing remains the same though, but the bergers of LA would demand that the likes of us city dwellers become more crowded than we currently are, therefore increasing the need for monster supermarkets within our overcrowded cities, whilst leaving the greedy bastards of idylic villages to live their lives as they would like. And you support them, unbelievable. In other circumstances you commies would be opposing these selfish right wing facists.

  5. thebristolblogger permalink
    September 17, 2011 11:34 am

    Dickie, Dickie, Dickie,

    Calm down. Take a deep breath.

    ‘Commie’ went out as an insult in around 1979. What next? How about a Wolfie Smith gag?

    Two pieces of advice:

    1. Try and post one message; wait for a response then post another. If you post three in a row it looks like you’re having a conversation with yourself, which is, like, a bit bonkers isn’t it?

    2. It’s highly unlikely Long Ashton Parish Council is run by fascists. They’re trying to save the greenbelt not invade Poland.

    I’m thinking about out who should play you in your walk-on part in the film. First thought of Timothy Spall dribbling a lot but beginning to think it might be a job for Steve Buscemi. Remember him in Con Air?

  6. bobs permalink
    September 17, 2011 3:29 pm

    I love being called a “commie”. That’s fantastic. I’ve been missing this

  7. September 17, 2011 5:38 pm

    lol at thebrstolblogger. What a legend.

  8. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    September 17, 2011 7:03 pm

    Hi Rich.
    I don’t think LA Parish Council have hidden the fact that preserving the GB has played a part in their decision. If I, and my guess is you too, lived in a village on the edge of a big city, we would expect our concillors to do all in their power to stop us being gobbled up by urban sprawl. Selfish perhaps, but not anymore than most people. For me, it all comes down to being able to trust what is promised. Sadly experience says don,t trust politians and don,t trust people whose main aim in life is getting rich. They always let you down. As for housing, when the 8,000 plus empty homes are lived in, and all the previously used land in this city has been developed, I’ll accept greenfield sites should be considerred, but untill then I will continue doing my little bit to protect our countryside.

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    September 17, 2011 7:11 pm

    Sorry, I wasn’t intending to insult anyone. Other terms such as anarchists, socialists, activists, are all descriptive terms, as is the term I used.
    I don’t want or need advice from anyone, least of all you. You claim my comment is from the 70’s, yet you are happy to quote referrences from the 40s and 50s.
    I was wondering what part you could play in a film, then I thought what film. Obviously, the invisible man, no name and no identity, because that way you can dish out the shit, be as brave as you like whilst hiding behind your anonymity. What’s it like not having the balls to be known?
    Here’s a little advice for yourself: try reading the posts and commenting on them, rather than trying and failing miserably to be funny. I take it that three posts is too much for your brain cell.

    BobS, I did not refer to you as a commie, you aint that high up in my estimation yet.
    Would any of you like to comment on the points raised in my third statement, or do you just want to play childish games while trying to take the piss?

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    September 17, 2011 7:42 pm

    Hi Paul
    You refer to 8,000 empty homes, obviously the more homes there are in an area the more empty ones there will be. I thought the city of Bristol had up to 6,000 empty properties. Don’t shoot me, I’m working from memory and don’t want to get too specific. But 6,000 out of 100,000 is not a massive amount, as one becomes occupied another becomes empty for whatever reason, there are probably only about 2,000 long term empty properties. We know how easy it is to make figures work to show what they want.
    It’s not the fact that the councillors are trying to protect the greenbelt, their not. They’re trying to protect their environment and their wealth. Whilst at the same time urging any housing to be developed in someone elses back yard, to the detriment of others. The fact that they’ve been in secret negotiations and deals is no different than the business community have been accused of, they are as you described, politicians and many are quite wealthy in relation to us city dwellers.
    As I’ve said, this is not about the stadium it’s about possible housing, developments. BCC refused housing on the greenbelt, so other councils could do likewise if they get their core strategies sorted out.
    Unfortunately the stadium is caught up in the middle of all sorts of different politics, of course it’s party to some. But the football club as a whole is being kicked from every angle possible by different groups, all with different agendas. And as a valuble part of the community the effect on it are there to see. All those concerned about the community, are actually abetting in harming that community, for their own causes, in my opinion.

  11. thebristolblogger permalink
    September 18, 2011 9:19 am


    Another two posts eh?

    I think I’ve already addressed your central point that Long Ashton Parish Council are fascists as blindingly stupid.

    I think you’re becoming a bit overwhelmed by your battle to help a billionaire get his little football pitch on the greenbelt.

  12. Bobs permalink
    September 18, 2011 11:03 am

    Oh go on Rich. Please insult me too. I so want to be a commie. If not commie, can you please give me my own insult.

  13. Deano permalink
    September 18, 2011 11:49 am

    “Don’t shoot me, I’m working from memory and don’t want to get too specific”


    Please don’t point out my mistakes, I am making this up as I go along and it’s not fair that you commies won’t let me make up my own facts to fit my arguments.

    “What’s it like not having the balls to be known?”

    Perhaps you should ask all those pro-stadium supporters on the OTIB site and Evening Post who hide behind pseudonyms. I am sure they will be pleased to know that you think they don’t have any balls…..

    “Would any of you like to comment on the points raised in my third statement, or do you just want to play childish games while trying to take the piss?

    Yes, your third statement looks like the sort of thing a child would write so I can only assume that you wrote is as a piss take.

  14. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    September 18, 2011 1:35 pm

    Rich. The Gov. has promised to protect the GB as has, as you point out, BCC, and NS plans are to develope around WSM and not Long Ashton. I’m sure that if these positions could be trusted, or even a guaranteed time scale put on them, we could all relax and find better things to do. But they can’t, so people continue to take precautionary positions. Thats how it works when dealing with politics and business. And whats so wrong with protecting your environment and your wealth. Surely in one way or another we all do that don’t you think?

  15. September 18, 2011 8:58 pm

    But the football club as a whole is being kicked from every angle possible by different groups, all with different agendas. And as a valuble part of the community the effect on it are there to see

    What you see here is the football fan being kicked about by the moneymen owners of the club. As are the local residents faced with Lansdowns monster Sainsburys hypermarket when the local shops are being lost. As are Ashton Vale residents who’ve been kicked from pillar to post. As are Long Ashton residents who’ve almost had a massive stadium and retail complex dumped on their doorstep.
    And the kicking that green campaigners have recieved when the council gives the nod for tarmac and concreted greenbelt.
    So who’s the winner in the developers hall of fame?
    The money-men in their ivory towers and tax havens get richer while our environment gets poorer due to the unsustainable degradation by the merchants of greed.

  16. Richard Lane permalink
    September 19, 2011 7:10 pm

    BB, yes another two posts, as they are to different people about different things. Obviouslly your brain cell wasn’t able to differentiate that.

    BobS, your nothing but a football supporter, blindly following the rest of the sheep like people on here. How’s that?

    Deano, as usual nothing to say except knock the poster. Translation of Deanos writing = Take a comment from somebody else and turn it around.
    Come up with some figures then, I was as I said working from memory and not trying to prove any points just discussing possible scenarios.

    As far as I understand it, BCC have a core strategy to follow, this enabled them to turn down the housing on southlands, as it wasn’t in their plan. I don’t believe NS have an adopted core strategy as yet, according to what I read. That could leave them open to speculative applications for greenbelt housing developments.

  17. BobS permalink
    September 20, 2011 8:28 am

    “speculative applications for greenbelt housing developments”

    If you read the bumpf for the BRT route, BCC is proposing to spend £50 million upon BRT upon the basis of an extra 10,000 homes in the area. Otherwise, its a road to nowhere.

    Do you think the Rich Men who bought all that agricultural land want to graze cows on it ? There will be planning application after planning application until they get their way.

    When Lansdown, Pontin and the rest of the GWEBW mob get their way, there will be no green space between Bristol and Barrow Gurney.

    Meanwhile, the disused and empty commercial spaces in the city grow and grow.

    Try this one Rich – you are a lazy hypocrit who has no concern for the facts, but will twist any nonsense so long as it fits in with your desire for BCFC to rent a new stadium.

  18. Richard Lane permalink
    September 20, 2011 9:21 pm

    you asked for an insult, I duely obliged with a tongue in cheek response.
    I have never intentionally been hypocryitcal or lazy, perhaps as I’ve admitted sometimes I might have been mistaken. Of course those opposing have got all their facts correct and never make a mistake do they? show me where I’ve twisted things.
    You have again attacked the poster without actually saying anything of substance.
    You are as usual very offensive whilst at the same time, talking out of your fat ass.

    I do have a concern for the facts, the majority of which are twisted and exagerated by all those opposing BCFCs stadium plans, all for wildly different reasons, apart from a few sane reasonable people.
    I don’t dissagree with you about the pressure from developers to build on greenbelt land, I never have and that pressure is sure to come. It is however totally unrelated to the stadium development though, as housing is now not included in the plans and never will be, as it will now be a state registered TVG. So North Somerset and LAPC only have to worry about those other landowners/developers and not the former tip. The stadium plans were allowed because they met the criteria for special dispensation for greenbelt development. If the councils get their act together and have a core strategy plan, housing can be refused in that area, as it was by BCC.

    Mr Lansdown has only purchased land for a stadium as far as I know.
    To help pay for that stadium he applied for housing on part of the site, this was turned down by BCC because it did not meet the requirements and was not part of their core strategy plan.
    BCFC have no desire to build houses on acre after acre of greenbelt land, which by the way they don’t even own, they only want to build a stadium, on land formerly used as a tip. The same type of greenbelt land, that a tennis centre and a giant car park the councils allowed to be built on.
    The only difference now, is that the relevant councils have agreed that the stadium can be built on that site, but, the timing of the stadium plans happen to coincide with previous unrelated plans for housing by developers to also build on greenbelt land in what is a relatively close proximity. This land, after consultation and pressure from the previous government to increase housebuilding,was agreed by the local authorities that it would be taken out of the greenbelt. Those relevant councils were calculating how many houses could be built there however reluctantly.
    Those are the facts. How you interpret them is up to you.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    September 20, 2011 9:36 pm

    Here is an example of those opposing the stadium twisting things: “speculative applications for greenbelt housing developments”
    This comment was attributed to me, for some reason, possibly to discredit me.
    That was of course only part of my comment, what I actually said was: “That could leave them open to speculative applications for greenbelt housing developments”. I was Referring to councils not having proper plans in position to repel such applications.
    That twisting of reality was carried out by you.

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    September 20, 2011 10:06 pm

    You refer to the BRT and a road to nowhere when you say “read the bumpf for the BRT route, BCC is proposing to spend £50 million upon BRT upon the basis of an extra 10,000 homes in the area. Otherwise, its a road to nowhere”.

    As far as I understand it, this road to nowhere is actually a link road from the A370 to the A38 and beyond to link up with the rest of Bristols southern ring road at Bishopsworth. This is a link road for south Bristol, planned to alleviate congestion on winterstoke road, the Parson street gyratory and provide better access from the estates in the Hartcliffe and Whitchurch area to the Portway, as well as providing a better route to and from the airport. It was I believe planned well before any housing plans.
    I could be wrong (wait for Deano) but isn’t the only reason for the BRT plan, a way of obtaining a higher percentage of the costs towards the road, from the government?
    There are no junctions planned, as far as I know, which will service the planned new town area, other than at either end. Perhaps I’ll have a more detailed look at the plans, anyone got a link?.

Comments are closed.